Protecting Brazil against abuses from U.S. and the
financial policies it sponsors

(PNS) --
Headlines
across the world shout about Brazil's new "leftist" president.
But Luis Inacio Lula da Silva won a landslide victory in Latin America's
largest economy by blurring traditional ideological boundaries and
forming a broad-based, nationalist coalition of Brazilians ready to take
on U.S. economic priorities and global financial institutions.

Lula's success is a clear demonstration of the changing face of Latin
American politics. The traditional struggle between conservatives, backed
almost unanimously by business and financial leaders, against socialists
or populists supported by the working class is giving way to a new
conflict. This conflict is between those committed to preserving national
interests and those willing to accede to the demands of international
financial institutions.

During the course of the campaign, Lula softened his staunch left-wing
views and moved toward a more moderate, business-friendly position. He
chose Jose Alencar, a millionaire textile magnate, as his running mate.
He promised to uphold Brazil's international commitments and rejected a
moratorium on foreign debt. He sought and won the support of numerous
business and financial leaders, and proposed the formation of a Council
of Economic and Social Development with representatives from business,
trade unions and other sectors of society to negotiate a new social
contract.

At the same time, Lula did not deny his dislike for the finance-oriented
market policies driven by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other
global institutions. He repeatedly denounced the current economic system
and insisted he would under no circumstances support the U.S.-backed Free
Trade Agreement of the Americas, claiming the proposed hemispheric
free-trade zone would essentially signify the American annexation of
Brazil's economy. Global free trade models, he said, would only become
viable when all countries have equal opportunities and conditions to
become competitive.

This is how did Lula managed to reconcile his seemingly leftist economic
views with his newfound friendliness toward business leaders:

The demands of the international financial community over the past
decade, specifically the strong emphasis on finance over production, has
put Brazil in the position where the interests of most local businessmen,
many local investors and middle class professionals are beginning to
coincide with those of the workers. The IMF-backed policies of recent
years have been designed to pour money into the country, regardless of
how it is used or distributed. As a result, most of the money has turned
to profits for foreign corporations or gone to the richest Brazilians,
and much has been taken out of the country for investment elsewhere.
Little attention has been paid to actually strengthening the ability and
capacity of the Brazilian economy itself, leaving in the lurch all but
the largest businesses, all of the workers and most of the professionals
who serve them.

So when Lula talks about how Brazil's problems go beyond its debt and
that the country needs to focus more on boosting imports, creating jobs,
and stimulating local business, he speaks for a wide range of Brazilians,
employers and employees alike.

He reframed the election from a contest between the left and the right to
a struggle over who gets to determine Brazil's future -- the U.S.-led
global financial community, or Brazil.

It is not difficult to explain how Lula was able to secure such a large
percentage of the vote. Unlike other recently elected leftist leaders in
the region -- Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, for example -- Lula's popularity
does not stem from a personality cult or an overwhelmingly destitute
population desperate for any kind of change. He has been very clear that
he has no interest in a Chavez-style popular revolution, and there is no
indication that Brazilians would have any interest in such.

Lula has managed to gain the support of his old enemies because he is no
longer seen as protecting the poor against the abuses of businesses, but
as protecting Brazil against the abuses of the United States and the
financial policies it sponsors. Yet Lula's blurring of traditional
liberal-conservative ideological distinctions in favor of a common
nationalistic outlook is not limited to Brazil. In Argentina, for
example, the financial crisis has polarized the country into pro- and
anti-IMF camps, the latter including workers and business owners.

As Latin America continues to reject the economic model that has been
foisted upon it during the past decade, politics will increasingly take
this form in the rest of the region.